[EM] Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts

[Richard Fobes]

Thank you, Dave Ketchum, for your excellent feedback.

Here is the revision of this section based on trying to implement your 
requested changes.

Your comment about the "open primary" issue helped me realize this isn't 
likely to be an issue after we get people to stop using plurality 
voting.  It was offered here in Oregon as a ballot referendum, and it 
was surprising how few people realized it was not a good idea. (It was 
yet another [flawed] attempt to compensate for the unfairness of 
plurality voting.)

---------- Multiple rounds of voting ----------

Current elections commonly use multiple rounds of voting, and the second 
round, which functions as the runoff election, is often limited to only 
two main candidates. These traditions have evolved because they help to 
overcome the weaknesses of plurality voting.

When any of our supported election methods are used, just one round of 
voting may be sufficient. In this case all the candidates, which may be 
up to as many as ten or possibly twenty, can compete in the same 
single-round election.

If a runoff election is also used, it does not need to be limited to 
just two main candidates. In fact, offering three or more candidates in 
a runoff election increases the fairness of the results. Why? It allows 
for two candidates that appeal to the majority of voters and at least 
one candidate that appeals to the “opposition” voters.

Primary elections, in which political parties choose just one candidate 
each to progress to the main election, might not be needed for 
less-competitive elections. However, in highly competitive elections 
such as for national parliament seats and presidencies, primary 
elections are still needed for several reasons. They allow voters to 
focus attention on more candidates initially, which accommodates more 
choices. Then during the main election voters can focus on the most 
popular candidates, without distractions from less-popular candidates. 
Primary elections also serve to foster political dialogue and the 
resolution of intra-party differences, so the cost of primary elections 
needs to be balanced against their benefits when considering whether 
they are still needed.

When choosing which candidates deserve to progress to a runoff election, 
we do not offer specific recommendations for interpreting results – 
beyond obviously including the most popular candidate. There are various 
possibilities for how to choose the second, third, and additional 
candidates, and the best approach would depend on which of our supported 
methods is used (in the earlier round), and other details. This 
complexity overlaps with the complexity of choosing a best method to 
increase proportional representation.

Regardless of whether our supported election methods are used with or 
without runoff elections, the results will be much fairer than can be 
achieved using plurality voting with multiple voting rounds.

---------- end ----------

Richard Fobes


On 8/31/2011 9:04 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:
>
>> Thank you Dave Ketchum and Peter Zbornik for your excellent responses
>> to my first draft of the "multiple rounds of voting" section! I have
>> tried to incorporate your requested improvements, while attempting to
>> keep it short.
>>
>> Here is what I've got now for this section:
>>
>> -------------- Multiple rounds of voting --------------
>>
>> Current elections commonly use multiple rounds of voting in an attempt
>> to overcome the weaknesses of plurality voting. When any of our
>> supported election methods are used, just one round of voting may be
>> sufficient.
>>
>> Although our supported election methods could eliminate the need for
>> primary elections (in which political parties choose just one
>> candidate each to progress to the main election), we support the
>> continued use of primary elections because they foster political
>> dialogue and the resolution of intra-party differences.
>
> I claim we should promote careful thought as to whether primaries are
> worth the expense since some methods, such as Condorcet, have no problem
> with clones or near-clones participating.
>
> With an activity changing from essential to useful, there should be
> consideration as to other possible ways to attend to its usage.
>>
>>
>> In situations that are highly controversial, we support the use of two
>> voting rounds so that voters can focus attention on the most popular
>> candidates during the second round, without distractions from
>> less-popular candidates. When multiple voting rounds are used, every
>> round should use one of our supported election methods. In these cases
>> it is not necessary to limit the runoff election (the second round) to
>> only two candidates, because that limit is only needed to accommodate
>> plurality voting.
>
> Runoffs are essential in FPTP, for FPTP can fail to have any candidate
> get a majority. Runoffs should not be needed for this more than very
> infrequently with our better methods (and they are EXPENSIVE - thus hard
> to justify).
>
> . A thought: If runoffs are not expected, voters had best prepare well
> for the main election. If expected, why should the lazy among the voters
> bother to prepare well before the main election?
>
> We WANT voters to do well with minimum of effort, so rounds should be
> minimized except where they may truly justify their expense.
>>
>> Also we agree that "open primary" elections are not fair. In this
>> approach, the supposedly most-popular candidates, regardless of
>> political-party affiliation, progress to the runoff (main) election.
>> This approach fails to consider that a near-majority of voters can end
>> up with only getting to choose between the two candidates who are
>> preferred by the majority. Expressed another way, the designation of
>> "most popular" is ambiguous in the context of choosing which
>> candidates deserve to progress to the main election.
>
> Why must we touch this topic (open vs closed) primaries? Seems like it
> is separate from our emphasis on voting methods.
>>
>> When choosing which candidates deserve to progress to a runoff
>> election, we do not offer specific recommendations for interpreting
>> results -- beyond obviously including the most popular candidate.
>> There are various possibilities for how to choose the second, third,
>> and additional candidates, and the best approach would depend on which
>> of our supported methods is used (in the earlier round), and other
>> details. This complexity overlaps with the complexity of choosing a
>> best method to increase proportional representation.
>>
>> Therefore, in this declaration, we are not expressing support for any
>> specific way to choose which other candidates (besides the most
>> popular), and how many candidates, deserve to progress to the runoff
>> election. Fortunately, in the runoff round, any of our supported
>> methods can produce fair results with three, four, or more candidates
>> -- in contrast to plurality voting which can handle only two.
>
> Huh? There can be a near tie amongst three and some could wish for all
> such to get included even in the FPTP world.
>>
>>
>> -------------- end --------------
>>
>> Richard Fobes
>